Orchestrate structured multi-role debates to adjudicate research decisions.
npx skills add https://github.com/ShinyGua/AutoArtsResearch --skill ar-debate
Please help me install this Agent Skill. Skill: ar-debate Source: https://github.com/ShinyGua/AutoArtsResearch/tree/main/.claude/skills/ar-debate Command: npx skills add https://github.com/ShinyGua/AutoArtsResearch --skill ar-debate
Orchestrates a structured multi-role debate workflow to adjudicate high-stakes research decisions, improving rigor and transparency in decision-making.
Initiate a structured multi-role debate on the provided proposal and debate type to obtain a final adjudicated decision.
High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.
To adjudicate competing research hypotheses, this Skill orchestrates a structured multi-role debate with defined roles like Proposer, Skeptic, and Judge. It outputs independent positions, critiques, and a final adjudicated decision for high-stakes choices.
Yes, multi-role debate supports theory choice and method fit decisions in arts and social sciences. It applies a configurable debate protocol to evaluate competing proposals and generates a final decision document for research rigor.
The best way to ensure transparency when evaluating rival explanations is using a debate workflow that saves round-wise transcripts and a final JSON outcome. This creates audit trails for reproducibility and governance of the adjudication process.
Yes, multi-role debate requires a defined debate protocol, named roles, and an accessible workspace to adjudicate high-stakes decisions. These prerequisites ensure the structured workflow produces independent positions and valid critiques.
To start a structured debate for final revision claim adjudication, initiate the workflow with your provided proposal and debate type. The Skill will orchestrate roles like Counterevidence Miner and Validity Critic to obtain a final decision.
You should not use structured multi-role debate for low-stakes or straightforward research decisions lacking competing hypotheses. The workflow requires distinct rival proposals or claims to generate meaningful independent positions, critiques, and final adjudication.
flonatChallenge research assumptions and identify argument weaknesses through adversarial critique.
leonfighting-pyCoordinate academic research through final manuscript with integrity checks and quality gates.
thtskaranGenerate a publication-quality research paper PDF from directory files and literature searches.
mietheCoordinate evidence-backed reviews of products, workflows, codebases, and architectures.
